It's only bad if someone else does it, Part 5,904

From today's Herald:

Direct train services between Glasgow and London on the troubled East Coast Main Line are to be axed under a major recasting of the route’s timetable being discussed by the Government and rail industry, The Herald can reveal.

The changes on the arterial route, one of two connecting Scotland to England, will see trains that currently run from King’s Cross up the east coast to Glasgow stop at Edinburgh from December 2010.

Passenger Focus, the statutory watchdog, said yesterday it was “seeking reassurances” that another operator would step in to deliver direct services from Glasgow to the north of England, warning that key routes to destinations such as Newcastle, York and Doncaster could be affected.

There were unconfirmed suggestions Arriva Cross Country could take up the slack under the new timetable by extending the service it operated from Glasgow along part of the East Coast Main Line as far as York. That would only leave destinations in the south-east of England without a direct connection to Glasgow.

John Mason, the SNP MP for Glasgow East, said the changes revealed Labour’s “hypocrisy” on rail following criticism this week of the SNP’s decision to scrap the Glasgow Airport Rail Link. He added: “These plans, which have been made without any consultation, are a serious mistake and must be stopped in their tracks.”

James King, Scottish board member of Passenger Focus, said: “Withdrawing these services is only acceptable if another operator can be found to provide connectivity between Glasgow and the north-east of England as far as York. We would want to be reassured that another operator can pick up the slack.”

I'm not going to add to John Mason's point of the double standards at work here (and at least the SNP have merely put on hold a plan that was yet to come be implemented, whilst Labour are considering going so far as to axe existing services), save to note that the final decision rests with Lord Adonis, who has been on the campaign trail this week. I bet he waits until after Thursday to make his choice.

On track

The SNP was, as expected, defeated over the Edinburgh Tram scheme last night, and has bowed to the will of Parliament. However, Finance Secretary John Swinney has made it clear that any overspend it the City Council's problem. Also, EARL, hangs in the balance, and it looks like SNP policy will come to pass there. For those who have been following this via the MSM, let me point out that this does not mean "no EARL". It means that the current plan is dodgy,and there should be an EARL if possible, but there has got to be a better plan than the one that's currently on the table. So basically, everyone comes away with something: the Opposition get their trams and agreement in principle (and if it's workable) to EARL. The Government will make the initial outlay for the trams but will not sign a blank cheque, and will get to re-do EARL to its own specifications. This is a sensible compromise, and even the Daily Record, the voice of the Labour Party on Earth, offers praise:

"THE SNP government suffered their first defeat since taking power yesterday.
"Their plans to scrap Edinburgh's proposed trams network and airport rail link were overturned by opposition MSPs.
"It could have sparked a political bunfight of point-scoring and bickering, gloating and sour grapes.
"But - amazingly - what Holyrood gave us yesterday was common sense. And all the parties deserve some credit.
"The trams project will go ahead - but be kept to a tight budget.
"The rail link, which has not been well run, will get the go-ahead only if John Swinney can iron out problems.
"He doubts he can, but at least he has agreed to try. And, in fairness, it's thanks to Swinney we know about problems with the rail link in the first place.
"The betting is, a cheaper version will emerge to replace it.
"For once opposition MSPs - Labour, Lib Dem and Tory - agreed what was best for Scotland, not for their parties. The SNP did the sensible thing and agreed.
"This is how parliament has to work in future."

It's hard to argue with that. For my part, I'm still not happy at the current tram plans - they don't go far enough for my liking and I'm annoyed that the Royal Infirmary won't be part of the network. But a tram line in one part of the City is better than a tram line in no part of the City, so here's hoping that the project goes well and that we don't have to wait too long for Line Three.

From A to B

Transport has been a big thing this week, so I'm trying to collect my many thoughts on the matter. I am something of a public transport geek (I used to collect bus timetables when I was a kid) so this is something very dear to me.

Firstly, on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link. This row has become more acrimonious than it needed to be: Labour and the LibDems argue that the plan developed while they were in government (i.e. to burrow under large tracts of the Capital) is the best. The new government favours an EARL, but not that one, reckons that there are better ways to deliver it, and wants to stop the current plans until it's found. So the two sides actually agree with one another on the basic principle; it's the delivery that is causing the problems.

This should be a chance for the 'new politics' we keep hearing about to come to the fore, and for both sides to sit round a table and work something out (the SNP would have had to do this anyway had there been a coalition, remember). Instead, both sides have retreated into the old way of doing things. I am reminded of Kombat Opera's version of Question Time, in which the Opposition Spokesman sings, "We oppose this Anti-Poverty Bill because it's not our Anti-Poverty Bill... Ours is written in a different font, and more words are underlined!"

Then there are the trams. I do not have sympathy with those people who say that this is a great project for Edinburgh. It's a great project for the North and West of the City. For everyone else, there is no benefit to be reaped, especially with the construction Line Three being tied to a congestion charge that residents rejected. Basically, it doesn't seem right that the trams can be put forward as the solution to Edinburgh's traffic problems when it's only a real alternative to any other means of transport if you're travelling to or from the Airport, or Leith. Yes, it will create another means of getting to the airport, but like the other Public Transport alternatives, only if you live on a direct route between the City Centre and Turnhouse. There'll be a link to a Ingliston Park & Ride, which is fine if you're driving in from Glasgow or West Lothian, but pretty much useless if you're coming from Fife or the Borders. And none of the people who want to improve Edinburgh's Public Transport seem to want to talk about restoring the City's South Suburban Rail Line.

A far more comprehensive project (no doubt more expensive, but of more use to more people, would be Dr. David Low's proposals, which are comparable to the Docklands Light Railway or Manchester's MetroLink. But even this could stand to go further, and in any case, Manchester should serve to be Edinburgh's inspiration.

Manchester has a rail link to the Airport: the line branches off at some point after Heald Green and conveys travellers to somewhere around Terminal 2. The links from the airport are many: in addition to travelling to Manchester it's possible to go Warrington and Liverpool; to Bolton, Preston (and then on to the West Coast Main Line) and then Blackpool, Barrow or the Lake District; to Leeds and then Hull, or York and on to Scarborough, Middlesbrough or Newcastle; to Sheffield, Doncaster and Grimsby. In short, practically the entire North of England is connected to the Airport, and I believe that there are plans ot extend this network to Glasgow and Edinburgh by the end of the year. This has been achieved without the need to burrow underground.

Manchester also has trams, but the scheme is far more ambitious in its current form: it is possible to catch a MetroLink tram in Bury, to the north of the City, and travel all the way to Altrincham some way to the South. By changing at Piccadilly, there is another tram seving Salford Quays and Eccles. The trams benefit not only wider parts of the City but also neighbouring towns, and so it leaves the modest Edinburgh proposal in the shade. If you really want to cut congestion, what is the point of focusing only on the North and West of the City, and linking with only one Park & Ride? People would still have to drive to Ingliston after all, so why not have the trams going from, say, Linlithgow in the West, to Dunbar in the East, and with another line from Waverley out to Penicuik? It would be a far more ambitious project and help to cut congestion not just within one part of the City, but across a wider area of the Capital and its environs.

One more transport thing: the A9. I was amused at David McLetchie accusing the SNP of focusing on its heartland at the expense of Edinburgh. He might want to have a chat with Murdo Fraser, his Party's Deputy Leader, who is at the forefront of the Tories' Dual the A9 campaign. Given that McLetchie is the Tory Chief Whip, is it wise for him to be criticising a proposal that is his Party's policy?